I'm reminded of similarly useless "sustainable cardboard furniture" that came out about a decade ago. On the positive side, kudos to whomever in marketing/pr at the design firm got this useless product so much press. This is just the sort of "win" that a design consulting shop loves to have for actual briefs that lead to real moving-the-needle revenue. One example would be SmartDesign's modular slip-on "S-Grips" that…
MUJI used to have lots of that (20-25yrs ago). Shelves made from cardboard tubes, etc... You could tell, one bump and it would be destroyed. I think they got rid of most of them.
Or save yourself $22: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR5G1HFXY1U
That does not look in any way equivalent to the stand in the article.
Huh, it looks very similar. Smaller in size, it fits a phone but otherwise very similar in my opinion.
A notebook would need a much larger and thicker sheet I guess.
I got a roost when they launched, still have it, practical and durable, I imagine I'll always have it. The problem with this paper one is that the paper will wear within a couple of years, and if you spill your coffee on it or anything like that or put it down on a coffee-ring stain, it's straight in the bin. I fail to see the value in something made from recyclable that is essentially disposable rather than a roost…
Why is it so expensive? It looks and functions exactly like a dozen other similar stands on aliexpress.
I’m not going to buy a knock off good from Aliexpress for a product that I have used everyday for the past two years across over two dozen cities.
>When I looked into it, it basically meant that it was made from beat up ugly strawberries That's true for basically all processed food that contains fruit or vegetables, for obvious economic reasons. The stuff that looks good goes to the supermarkets who care very much about shelf appeal, the rest goes to the processors who absolutely don't.
Stuff like Pringles are made from the nastiest rotting potatoes in the planet. It's been 20 years since the last time I set foot in a potato plant, I can still smell it.
Good. That means they're reducing food waste.
A big problem with the food market is that people shop with their eyes, which leads to stupid amount of waste on fruit&vegetables section, as people prefer to go to another store than to buy veggies that look anything less than perfect.
Your way of thinking definitely isn't entirely incorrect, and I think a lot of times people forget that prices, while they can certainly have an arbitrary component, are largely driven by market forces, which at the very least will tell you something about the supply and demand of a product. However, I disagree with this: > And all these additional costs likely make it the "wrong" decision since they likely contribut…
>However there's another company that buys cheap land from farmers in the Amazon, with cheaper labor, ships it up via freight, and sells it for marginally cheaper. The costs in the latter example are largely driven by transportation - and while cheaper, has a significantly larger carbon impact. How does this apply to recycling though? Landfills in developed countries have little, if any externalities, because they're…
Largely I agree - landfills are not nearly as bad as people assume based on aesthetics and history. In fact, putting plastic in the ground is essentially a form of carbon sequestration. I just disagree with the logic of "If recycling is more expensive, isn't recycling the wrong thing". There's many situations where prices do not correlate with environmental impact. In the case of recycling, I haven't done the research to be certain either way. I think for aluminum and glass it checks out, but not really for most plastics.
Sometimes it's a marketing stunt, but often recycling is more expensive. I mean, recycling a plastic bag is probably more expensive than making one. The unfortunate reality of our financial system is that it often rewards people for doing the wrong thing.
If recycling is more expensive, isn't recycling the wrong thing? The price isn't some random number attached to an activity. It captures the various costs associated with it and is helpful in directing behaviors for this very reason. Recycling is more expensive, it likely means that there are associated costs (e.g. transportation, sorting, cleaning, processing, etc) that make it less economical than just throwing it…
> The price isn't some random number attached to an activity. It captures the various costs associated with it and is helpful in directing behaviors for this very reason.
It doesn't capture all of the costs. Key term here is "externalities", which are things that should be priced into a transaction, but currently aren't. Like the environmental impact of manufacturing process.
If all major externalities were priced in, and recycling would still be more expensive, then we could confidently say that it's the wrong thing to do.
If recycling is more expensive, isn't recycling the wrong thing? The price isn't some random number attached to an activity. It captures the various costs associated with it and is helpful in directing behaviors for this very reason. Recycling is more expensive, it likely means that there are associated costs (e.g. transportation, sorting, cleaning, processing, etc) that make it less economical than just throwing it…
I can't stop my wife from cleaning everything we put in recycling. Not just a rinse-off, but completely and immaculately cleaning them. Sometimes in the dishwasher. I think the net environmental benefit of our recycling may be below zero.
I couldn't convince my mom to stop washing the recyclables. Fortunately, our municipal sanitation department recently published an informational video on proper recycling procedures, in which they explicitly tell people to stop wasting water on cleaning the trash.
The article is seemingly outdated. The cheapest one I could find in the store was 29 USD. In Euros, it’s 36.37. And of course, you still have to pay for shipping. From Korea. This seems quite absurd. Whatever good you do the planet by using something out of recycled paper (thumbs up on the idea) will surely be offset by all the logistics of the shipping. This should have been a tutorial, not a product.
I often see "recycled" or similar as a signal for more expensive. My favorite was when I saw a jam that touted "upcycled" strawberries. When I looked into it, it basically meant that it was made from beat up ugly strawberries that would have been used for animal feed. Surely there would be cost savings in using reject fruit, right? No, an 8oz jar retails for over $8 compared to about half that to an organic no sugar…
>When I looked into it, it basically meant that it was made from beat up ugly strawberries That's true for basically all processed food that contains fruit or vegetables, for obvious economic reasons. The stuff that looks good goes to the supermarkets who care very much about shelf appeal, the rest goes to the processors who absolutely don't.
Exactly, which is why I found it so entertaining. The idea that the Smuckers CEO is paying extra for beautiful fruit right before it get pulverized into jam is laughable. It's the market and price system taking care of the problem and opportunistic brands making up a problem that doesn't exist and charging users a premium to solve the non-existent problem